Homosexual Marriage - a question

[centristo]

Another post made me think a bit about homosexual marriage. (Quick background, I'm straight and I think bans of gay marriages are SO stupid, if not unconstitutional.)

So I'm going through the steps in my head about how to defend gay marriage, and the "slippery slope" argument creeped in. If gay marriage is ok, then what about polygamy? They both have consenting adults.

Just curious, do the people (gay or striaght) on this board support polygamy just as they would gay marriage? Or is it different somehow?

For me, it doesn't really matter a whole lot, I could care less what people do in their bedrooms, but at the same time I feel like its "wrong" to have mulitple wives or husbands. Seems too 10th century Arabian Sultanish or something. I guess I haven't really thought about it.

What does DU say?

[Midlodemocrat]

1. Polygamy ususally involves young women, so it is not

by any stretch consenting adults.

[cali]

3. Sorry, that's not an answer.

Or at least it's not a good one. To counter it, all one has to say is; polygamy between consenting adults. A better answer is simply to dismiss the slippery slope argument.

[Midlodemocrat]

7. Sorry, THAT's not an answer

dismissing the slippery slope argument will be impossible with fundies. Polygamy and gay marriage have nothing in common and even fundies don't want to go down the child bride path.

Statistically, polygamy involves under aged women who are often distantly related to the man. If it only involved of age women, it wouldn't even be a consideration.

[China_cat]

12. Polygamy as it stands now

is a danger to women and girls. But if it was out of the shadows and no longer criminal, I don't believe that would be the case. And I see that as the very first of the SERIOUS violations of the first amendment in this country. Utah was blackmailed into criminalizing polygamy as a requirement for statehood against the majority of settlers' religious beliefs.

[Midlodemocrat]

15. I disagree.

Polygyny causes serious emotional heartache for a lot of women who are co-erced into it.

Check out this website.

http://www.polygamy.org/

I wouldn't want to see it legalized, ever.

[China_cat]

18. If it wasn't illegal, there wouldn't be the coercion

hidden out in communities where the gene pool has become too shallow to even wade in. There would be a full community with many willing participants who are now excluded because they don't want to break the law.

The abuses are due to the illegal status, not the other way around.

[Midlodemocrat]

20. I disagree. The coercion of young under aged girls

and the feeling of being 'replaced' cause the emotional upset. I don't think it should be legalized. I think that would be a big mistake.

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. Straw man. Pedophilia is pedophilia and has nothing to do with

polygamy.

The OP specified 'consenting adults'.

Polygamy exists and has existed throughout the world in many forms, and has been a very successful social structure for many reasons. Even the Greco-Roman model of society upon which our society is based, which officially didn't recognize polygamy, allowed for easy divorce, serial marriages and the keeping of concubines and lovers outside the marriage. Polygamy apparently existed in Judaism until the Greek conquest @330 BCE, when Greek mores did away with the custom - the Arabic tribes, never completely conquered by Alexander, kept the custom and made it a part of the Muslim tradition 800 years later. The "Judeo-Christian" tradition of monogamous marriage is actually a very strictly observed custom imposed by Greek and Roman conquerors. I suspect it was enforced to limit the wealth and power of a conquered people by limiting the size, and thus influence of the native agrarian families.

It is the current illegality of polygamy that has allowed the criminal abuse in the cult setting -- what they are doing is already illegal, so there is no legal recourse when abuse becomes institutionalized. You can't really conflate what is happening there with the centuries long traditions of multiple marriage that have existed since the beginning of history.

[Midlodemocrat]

23. Nope. The very nature of polygyny involves

under aged women. And perhaps the OP was unaware of that fact, and was in fact thinking of the new HBO show.

And let's face it, just because something is 'centuries old' doesn't make it right.

Polygyny hurts women.

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. NO no no no no

The very nature of the cult in Colorado City involves underage women.

Have you ever seen picture of Brigham Young's wives? I think the youngest, when married, was 17 at a time when 14 and 15 year old marriages were common. Many were much older when he married them.

Saying all polygamy involves underage women because of this sick cult, is like saying all pastors sleep with the wives of their followers because that's what Jim Jones did. If polygamy was legal between consenting adults, than taking a 14 year old wife would be pedophilia and strictly illegal, just as it is now.

How can you not get that?

[Midlodemocrat]

26. Sorry. Don't buy it.

Check out this website.



http://www.polygamy.org /

[RaleighNCDUer]

28. And again, that concerns a cult offspring of a cult religion.

I personally don't consider Mormonism to be any more legitimate than Scientology as a religion - but that is a different argument.

The various forms of plural marriage that have existed across time and across the world clearly show that the one man/one wife model that we have adopted is not the only workable model for a family. The article doesn't concern itself with traditional Islam, with pre-Christian Scandinavia or any other type of polygamy - only the form which they are quite rightfully opposed to: the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints. And the problem with them is primarily one of pedophilia and cult coercion, not polygamy as such. The cult tells the girls they must join the marriage or they will be damned to hellfire - which is essentially no different than the Scientologist auditor saying that the voice of reason that makes you suspicious of the group is an uncleared thetan that wants to prevent you being healed. It's designed to remove choice from the individual.

Legalizing polygamy would restore choice to the equation, and provide for legal recourse when choice is abrogated. When CONSENTING ADULTS choose plural marriage, that should be their right.

[sui generis]

30. if that's the the problem then that's the problem that should be addressed

not the polygamy, but the marriage of young unconsenting adults.

[wtmusic]

2. good question

maybe in 10 years we'll be having the same debate about polygamy, although from a historical standpoint it seems that polygamy is linked to abusive situations.

[Devlzown]

4. I don't have a problem with polygamy as long

as the people involved in the relationship are able to support their family on their own. I just don't like it when they have 30 children and depend on government subsidies to feed everyone.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. It's apples and oranges.

I don't see gay marriage being anything like polygamy, except that they're both outlawed. Furthermore, legalizing polygamy opens the door to any number of public abuses. One could technically have multiple wives and none of them would know the others existed. That's not consenting to polygamy. A large group of people could get married just to grant citizenship to a group of immigrants. Or they could use it just to share health insurance amongst a group of people. When marriage is only between two people (regardless of gender) you don't have those problems.

[theoldman]

6. Polygamy was a result of economics for widows.

Many religions including Judaism practiced polygamy to insure that widows were taken care of. It was the Mormons that started the practice of only marrying young women. There is not need today for polygamy to ensure that any woman is financially protected.

[BOSSHOG]

8. The what's next? polygamy? argument

is right wing nonsense carved into the brains of religiously insane. And would not polygamy be a heterosexual issue? If some want to legalize it they should run the issue up the flag pole and see if anyone salutes. "just as they would gay marriage?" Its not gay marriage its the joining of two people who love each other. The opposition is based on hate. And another right wing wack job "christian" argument is that "gay" marriage would upend the sanctity of marriage. One would have to be insane to think that. If "christians" want to maintain the sanctity of marriage, I suggest they work to ban divorce. But that would effect them wouldn't it?

And don't forget the what's next? Legalized incest? argument. People who hate spend alot of time and effort attempting to force themselves on the masses.

[Sammy Pepys]

9. Gay marriage doesn't have to lead to polygamy

Honestly, I used to think it would lead to strange marriae arrangements like that....but I've rethought that premise.

There's just not a huge polygamist movement anywhere...not among straights, not among gays, not among anyone except for a handful of fringe societies. Taking the gender component out of the concept of marriage, marriage is considered a bond between two people...no more, no less. It's a fundamental that homosexuals are not attempting to change, and one the vast majority of straight folks accept.

Obviously, polygamy would radically change the concept.

[centristo]

14. hmm, i think i agree

there aren't that many polygamists, so its not a big issue. If in 10-20 years it gains momentum, I guess it could be debated at that time.

[JoshWatermanMN]

10. Seems like polygamy is pretty Xtian to me.

The Bible is full of instances of polygamy, so I feel it is a bit disingenuous when people trot out the slippery slope polygamy argument on one hand while bashing gays based on Biblical standards the next.

For the record, I am all for polygamy, provided everyone is consenting adults and can provide for their families. Interestingly enough, though, those who practive polygamy seem to do so based on very heterosexualist, male-centered terms. I don't think I have seen any examples where everyone in the situation are deemed equal; someone always is the center of attention and "in control." It's the latter example with which I would have trouble.

[nickinSTL]

11. honestly, if they are all consenting adults...

I'm not sure there is a good argument against it.

Aside from the fact that few polyamorous relationships work, from what I've seen (that isn't to say it can't, but I haven't seen many that do).

In my opinion, marriage should be a contract between two consenting adults.

[NanceGreggs]

13. I am pro-gay marriage ...

... but anti-polygamy. And it's a societal issue, for me, rather than a moral issue.

Many people actually have polygamous relationships, in that they have an emotional and sexual relationship with more than one person - like the married man with a mistress, the married woman with a lover.

But to accept 'marriage', in terms of a legally binding contract between groups rather than couples, brings about too many legal quagmires that would impact on society as a whole. What happens if a man has three wives, and two of them eventually divorce him? If he's on the hook for alimony plus child support, he can't possibly afford to support THREE separate households. How many women with children would wind up on partial assistance, or welfare as a result? That would be an overwhelming financial drain on society's resources.

It would also mean that the wife who has chosen to stay in the marriage has to share the financial burden of supporting children that are not her own. You can see the legal ramifications there alone.

Polygamy tends to be one man with several wives, which always struck me as being a recipe for disaster. Five or six wives can produce more children than one man can sufficiently support in just a couple of years. Even if SOME of those women get into the workforce to help support the extended family, SOME of them still have to stay home and look after the gaggle of kids.

I'm not promoting the idea, but it would make much more sense for one woman to have six husbands. She could NEVER produce more children than six fathers could provide for! (Not to mention the fact that one woman could easily have sex with ALL of her husbands, individually, without a problem. Now show me the MAN who could satisfy SIX women in the same night!)

[Warpy]

16. What is wrong for you may not be wrong for someone else

which is the basic concept when you're trying to figure out why gays "do that stuff" or why any sane person would consent to enter into a plural marriage.

Some Christians blather about hating sin but loving the sinner as an excuse to treat everybody around them like shit. Well, hating the sin means not doing the sin, yourself. You have no control over other people and will only spread resentment if you try to control them. The best you can do is lock up the ones who go out of their way to harm other people so they can't do it again.

I have no objection to plural marriage as long as it's a marriage entered into by adults, not the organized pedophilia that exists in Utah. I object more to serial polygamy, where rich men simply abandon a series of wives and children in favor of new models every few years.

Honestly, it's quite simple. If something feels "wrong" to you, don't do it. Just don't assume that other adults feel the same way about things and don't assume you're wise enough to make their rules for them.

[Orrex]

17. Well, it's not really a slippery slope at all

Anyone who leaps from "gay marriage" to "polygamy" is simply trying to blur the argument. Gay marriage no more leads to polygamy than does "straight" marriage. I mean, if you're going to allow one man to marry one woman, why not let him marry two or five or twenty women?

Incidentally, assuming that all parties are legal adults entering into the contract of marriage with full awareness and by their own will, I can't think of an argument that really justifies a ban on polygamy, outside of adhering to societal conventions. Even issues of taxation (a surrogate objection offered in place of the real objection) could be addressed and easily avoided (to prevent double-dipping of the "marriage deduction").

Your opponent will say something at this point about "the traditional institution marriage" being one man/one woman. Okay, but in the not-too-distant-past, the "woman" might have been thirteen years old, wed to a man twice her age or more. And a black man surely couldn't marry a white woman! That would be miscegenation!

"Traditional marriage" is a glaring red herring (to coin a rhyme) Demand that your opponent define "traditional marriage," addressing the countless divergences from that tradition that we've seen over the centuries. You might even ask if, by "traditional," he means "the concept of marriage formed in the 1950's."

Incidentally, your opponent will probably mention bestiality at some point, because Conservatives love nothing so much as steamy man-on-animal action. Happily, that bogus argument is even more easily dismissed: animals can't enter into legal contracts, so it's not even relevant unless your opponent suggests that animals should be permitted to enter into contracts. And then you can ask why your opponent is so keen on granting these rights to animals--does your opponent harbor a secret longing for his livestock?

While you're at it, ask him why Conservatives always use such throbbing invective to decry homosexuality. All this talk of "shoving it in our faces" and "ramming it down our throats" spices up the rhetoric and makes me wonder what's really on Conservatives' minds...

[sui generis]

35. you're spot on about "traditional"

until there's a law that defines violations of tradition with legal remedy, I think tradition and the law should part company.

Traditions are not fixed anyway - they change over time, and some people even start new ones. That's how we got the ones we have.

In fact, in an extended sense the constitution exists to protect the rights of the minority to practice their traditions free from interference by the majority if the traditions of the majority are different.

In that same way I would have to say that I have a traditional gay family. Those pesky mixed sex marriages are completely untraditional in our community.

Go figure.

[cboy4]

19. I just cringe when people try to associate gay marriage with polygamy,

molestation, etc.

Even though things are NOT NEARLY ALIKE, it just gives the nuts on the right more ammunition. (and we know how extreme they can be with their remarks about what's next? gay people marrying turtles, blah blah blah).

Personally, I don't care what people do, as long as it doesn't involve children.

[W_HAMILTON]

21. Well...

First of all, I don't see how people can equate homosexual marriage with polygamy. Homosexual marriage is the exact counterpart to heterosexual marriage. Now if people were pushing for polygamist homosexual marriage, ok, then I get your point. But they're not. It's just something that anti-gay marriage people bring up to try and make it sound like gay marriages are a bad thing.

It's not an argument about consenting adults for me. Maybe if you think that's all there is to it, then that would lead you to believe that polygamy should also be allowed. My reasoning is that, I'm gay and that's not illegal (even though some of the fundy's are trying to change that), and I can get married (albeit to a woman), and that's not illegal. So why make it illegal for me to marry someone of the same sex? That's just gay discrimination, plain and simple.

On the other hand, I can't legally marry 18 women, and I can't marry one man (much less 18 of them), so why would gay marriage pave the way for polygamy? It's illegal for everyone -- gays, straights, women, men, whoever. Marriage is not illegal TO gay people (since we could theoretically marry someone of the opposite sex), but it is illegal BETWEEN gay people. Do you see how silly that is?

And personally, I couldn't care less about polygamy. In fact, I'm leaning towards it, because if the Christian fundys can enforce their definition of marriage onto everyone else, why can't those religions that condone polygamy enforce their religious laws on us too?

[slide to the left]

24. What about marrying my dog

if she consents.

[Orrex]

27. See Reply 17

Anyway, you should stay away from that bitch.

[sui generis]

31. you nailed the issue and didn't even know it.

Your dog is not considered a legal adult with all the constituent rights of a legal adult.

Neither are gays, to most people.

When people say what about marrying my dog, they unwittingly (or otherwise) are saying gays marrying are as absurd as real adult straight people marrying their dogs.

Hey, right here in front of you - we're pretty goddamn grown up, we pay taxes, we sew you up in the emergency room, fight and die for your "freedoms" in foreign wars, police your neighborhoods, run your banks, manage your restaurants, deliver your mail, and sometimes, rarely, cut your hair.

Not asking anyone's permission to be here OR to get married. Just your blessing.

[Orrex]

45. Wait a minute--you're gay!?!

;) Eeewwww! And I PM'd you and everything! ;)

[sui generis]

46. it was good for me. was it good for you?

:smoke:

:rofl:

[Orrex]

47. It was fabulous!

I'm just glad that two guys can still email each other without offending some millennia-old tradition of hetero-only emailing.

[cboy4]

34. Sorry, but I really don't find that dog joke/remark the least bit amusing.

Comparing two gay individuals getting married to an animal is exactly the same bullshit Sen. Santorum and some of the other other right wing A-Holes use to try to divide America about gay marriage.

The Republican's game plan last time was to try to energize the right wing base in order to get the fundamentalist christian conservative extremists to go to the polls in order to "save" heterosexual marriage.... it worked because they also voted for that idiot Bush.

Now your remark may have been a joke, but I fiercely oppose and take offense to the mention of animals in the same breath as gay marriage.

[sui generis]

29. adults make their own decisions

we don't make them for them, no matter how we feel about their eye color or what they do or don't do with their reproductive organs.

okay w/polygamy provided all participants have some kind of contract marriage agreement. I don't really see that it would be an overwhelming issue.

[foreigncorrespondent]

32. They have nothing to do with each other!

The simple way to resolve this (not that fundie idiots would listen) would be to say right out, gay marriage is between two consenting adults of the same sex. Polygamy is heterosexual and has absolutely nothing to do with the gay community. So why should we make the gay community suffer for something that is heterosexual?

[davidinalameda]

33. apples and oranges

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

36. Simple? explanation... there are only 3 sexual identies.

hetero- homo- bi- (asexual doesn't count.. smile)

So if you applies laws EQUALLY to all sexualities, like polygamy, pedophelia, etc, there is not an issue. It's when you apply laws to only ONE sexual identity that the arguments fall flat. And of course taken out of context comparing polygamy with a sexual identity is a slippery slope.

Let's jump to beastiality, thats always a bell-ringer.

Y'think it would be 'proper' to allow Male-human to Female-animal penetration but then condemn Female-humans or male-human to male-animals?

It's about sexual IDENTITY... not sexual activities.

[jonolover]

37. Polygamy has its place, just not now.

Polygamy, in the olden times, was acceptable, actually, necessary to maintain birth rates with lots of men dying in battles and wars. That is why polygamy came into being. And that is also why polyandry didn't. We certainly do not have that situation anymore. On the contrary, we are faced with over-population. So, we do not need polygamy. If in the future, the humankind is challenged with natural calamities of enormous magnitude and somehow millions and millions of people perish, we may have to take some drastic measures then in order to "repopulate" the earth. And polygamy seems a nice way to do that. We will deal with it when and if that situation arises. For now, let's keep the issue in lock-and-key and deal with the issue that is in front of us - marriage equality with two people involved. That is what I think about the slippery slope argument.

On edit: I guess for the Mormons, they practice polygamy to merely increase their number - so that they can bear enough clout to stop the screening of "Brokeback Mountain" from a Sandy theater!

[readmoreoften]

38. Whatever. Get the government out of the marriage business.

Civil unions for all consenting adults, like in Holland. If you want the religious ceremony of marriage, find a church that'll bind you before God. But, so long as heteros have marriage, us homo should have equal treatment under the law; so until then, marriage for us.

If twelve bisexuals want to marry one another, that's grand for them. I don't care. If they want to split the 12th share of their house 11 ways when one of them dies, grand for them, hire a lawyer.

If twelve adult heterosexual women want to marry one man, grand for them. Especially if they're humping each other in the meanwhile.

The real problem, to me, sounds like religion and pedophilia, not polygamy or organizing your life the way you please.

Personally, I won't go to a heterosexual wedding. I did three years ago and it really rubbed me the wrong way. It's a little like watching the whites drink at the drinking fountain when the coloreds only fountain's out of order. I also get irritated when straight people interrupt functions to announce their weddings in mixed company. What am I supposed to say? I'm happy that you have the legal right to visit your partner in the hospital when she's ill. Usually, these people have been together for less time than I have with my own partner, and we can't even cuddle in front of her family on Christmas Eve.

Don't get me started.....

[jonolover]

39. Geez readmoreoften!

It's ok, I know, I understand. :hug:

[readmoreoften]

42. I'm a cranky bastard of a woman!

Don't get me started! :pals:

[keithkam]

40. I would ask if we allow straight marriage why not polygamous ones? eom

[Maven]

41. Easy question.

A marriage is not merely a social unit. It's an economic unit as well. So if you were to have polygamous marriages in which partners could share resources and benefits among them, you would essentially create a "free rider" problem, causing the cost of those benefits to rise for everyone. Hell, you don't even need to have a sexual relationship to form a marriage in the first place, so you can imagine scenarios in which groups of "partners" formed "corporate" marriages to share such benefits, to the detriment of everyone else.

The slippery slope argument in general is thus bullshit. Allowing two same-sex persons to wed--just as exactly two opposite-sex persons can--could not and would not lead to marriages with multiple partners.

Edit: I see Vash briefly touched on the same point. :hi: Hopefully my post will help to flesh out this reasoning.

[NMMNG]

43. While same-sex marriage and polygamy have nothing to do with one another,

I don't care one bit if polygamy is legalized for consenting adults.

[Brian_Expat]

44. Why should polygamy and other forms of relationships be banned?

If it involves consenting adults, it's not the government's business.

That's the ultimate argument behind any opposition to gay bans or any other sort of ban. The government shouldn't be in the business of "morally endorsing people's personal lives.